He's not necessarily doing anything wrong. Most employers permit personal, limited internet usage as long as it doesn't interfere with company work. That includes doing so during a lunch time.

If so, and if the company is so flexible, then my previous premises apply too. i.e., that there should be an intent to visit explicit sites and to create a "hostile work environment." Hardly such a flexible policy goes combined with a zero-tolerance one.

11 people have voiced opinions in support (including our host)4 people have repeatedly voiced opinions against

PeterAit, Slobodan, Opgr, and Rob C.,I am sorry that this request is such an inconvenience to you and that it violates your morals in such a fundamental way, but I am not moved by your arguments that remain detached from the reality of our modern society.

Thank God Michelangelo's David is not in the USA, they would have to dress him up. They actually did that to a replica that served as a hotel's fountain here in the Midwest, when the conference facilities were rented by a religious group.

For a more recent take on dressing up statues for their "immodesty", check out this video (sorry for the ad in the beginning):

As one of the 'guilty parties' who has posted the occasional nude here, I am quite happy to place the word 'nudity' in the Subject of the post. This will serve both to warn and to welcome, I should imagine.

Surely in these enlightened times an employer can tell the difference between a nude on a photographic site and one on a porn site? Then again if the employee is sitting in front of the computer in the nude with a bottle of poppers in his/her hand then there could be a "problem".

Well, I find it all so depressing that in this day and age there are still social bubbles where the human figure is considered dirty, unsafe and at the very least, distasteful.

Creating a special 'red light' district in LuLa would be a terribly backwards step, making out of innocence and art a monster of vice.

If that happens, then I really do think I bid my third and final adieu to a place that helped me a great deal, especially after the death of my wife, urged me back into the making of images at a time when the strongest thought was the exiting of everything; few who helped me are even aware of their contribution - I doubt that any of them is - but I thank them nonetheless.

A friend in England sent me a book called Exposure, which is a strange investigation into the life and death of Bob Carlos Clarke.

It is a sequence of interviews. One of these, with photographer John Stoddard, reports a conversation with Patrick Lichfield, who first embraced digital and then, later, complained that it had ruined his life, that nobody wanted to send him anywhere anymore. Another interviewee mentions the death of one of my oft-quoted heroes, Terence Donovan, and that the feeling existed that age and familiarity had begun to turn him into a mild form of yesterday man...

Photography is a flickering flame at the back of a shed; don't make even stronger winds blow.

11 people have voiced opinions in support (including our host)4 people have repeatedly voiced opinions against

PeterAit, Slobodan, Opgr, and Rob C.,I am sorry that this request is such an inconvenience to you and that it violates your morals in such a fundamental way, but I am not moved by your arguments that remain detached from the reality of our modern society.

I never claimed that my morals were being violated. I also never argued that viewing nudes in a workplace was not a potential problem - it is, of course. I did argue that you should not expect the forum membership to change their posting habits to suit your convenience, yet you totally ignore my point. You seem to feel entitled to have others change their habits so you don't have to change yours.

I never shoot nudes so this would not affect me one way or the other.

Is there some reason why you don't bother to read and understand posts before replying? It really makes for much more intelligent threads.

Logged

Peter"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."